Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty. Plus I'm sure this new rule will lead to even more electronic waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
|
Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty. Plus I'm sure this new rule will lead to even more electronic waste.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Or smarter buying habits.
Good luck with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I totally agree. Some 83 year old guy who likely has never owned a smartphone made that ruling.Quote:
Yes, but if I've fulfilled my contract I should be free to do what I want with my phone without fear of penalty.
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.
Edit by user
There is absolutely no doubt. It's the only way that ruling makes any sense.Quote:
Or industry lobbyist, there are a million of those suckers around.
I'm sure the lobbyists wanted this, all the more reason why an unelected bureaucrat should not have the power to unilaterally issue such a ruling.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Meanwhile in Canada: Wireless fee, contract guidelines proposed by CRTC - Technology & Science - CBC News
Every once in a while we do things right. :)
Yep very needed reforn in most telco markets
Interesting, on the 9th of January Sarah Kliff tells us "why talk of non-existent Obamacare death panels won’t die" - then talks about death panels 9 days later.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I think you missed the point of the first column. I'm guessing because you didn't actually read it.
It's the other way around - you obviously didn't read your article, nor the other one I posted. :D
Dude, the obvious went right over your head. I feel sorry for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Don't, I'm a happy guy that took a day off to be with my kids on this storm day. We're having fun.Quote:
I feel sorry for you.
Tell me what you get from this excerpt:
Quote:
Nyhan had 948 survey participants read an article from 2009 about Palin’s statement on death panels. Some had favorable opinions of the former governor of Alaska; others did not. The respondents ran the gamut in their knowledge of current politics.
All read a story about Palin’s 2009 statement, which brought death panels into the mainstream debate. Some had this correction appended to the end of the story:
Nonpartisan health care experts have concluded that Palin is wrong. The bill in the House of Representatives would require Medicare to pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling sessions, but there is no panel in any of the health care bills in Congress that judges a person’s “level of productivity in society” to determine whether they are “worthy” of health care.
For Palin supporters and opponents alike, low-information voters’ belief in the death panels decreased after reading this correction.
But something different happened among high information voters. Those with cold feelings towards Palin acted like the low information voters, with their belief in death panels dropping.
For high information Palin supporters though, the correction backfired: They appeared more likely to believe in death panels after reading the appended information, and have less favorable opinions of the Affordable Care Act.
I feel exactly as before, it was irrelevant to my post other than the same writer explained why death panels won't die them discussed death panels... and why no one wants the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I should be able to round up 14 more people (besides myself) to serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
No offense, but that's kind of scary. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I'll promise that half of us will be Republican (i.e. team of rivals). How's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:08 AM. |